NationStates Jolt Archive

This morning on BBC Newshour I heard a report on the current situation in the Gaza strip. They reported on Israeli airstrikes, but didn't report that they were provoked by Hamas rockets launched into Israel from the Gaza strip. The way the story was reported made it seem as if the current airstrikes may or may not have been provoked by Hamas violence.

Other news agencies have stated explicitly that the airstrikes were in retaliation for Hamas rocket attacks. Why didn't the BBC clearly state that on their radio program? Are the BBC biased against Israel?

Here's a more balanced view of the events in Gaza. http://euronews.net/create_html.php?page=detail_info&article=310668&lng=1

They said hamas hit first on the TV news.

Even showed us the cntrails and blast sites.

They said hamas hit first on the TV news.

Even showed us the cntrails and blast sites.I concur. They were even interviewing the Israeli PR officer as to why.

Ok, the radio story I heard omitted talk of the Hamas rocket attacks though. I guess it just got lost in the shuffle and was an honest mistake.

Ok, the radio story I heard omitted talk of the Hamas rocket attacks though. I guess it just got lost in the shuffle and was an honest mistake.At least you formulated it as a question. I remember a thread about how the world was evil because the starter hadn't heard that we were sending aid to the Katrina victims...

ZOMGNOOO!!
The BBC is the perfect and most excellent example of a news reporting agency ever, they cannot be biased! THEY ARE UNBIASED! I REFUSE TO EVEN THINK THAT THE BBC COULD BE FALLIABLE IN ANY WAY!

And so on.

Even if they aren´t biased,they should be.It´s about time somebody knocked up those Israeli politicians for genocide.If it were any other country,we´d´ve long since given them at least a trade embargo...

Even if they aren´t biased,they should be.It´s about time somebody knocked up those Israeli politicians for genocide.If it were any other country,we´d´ve long since given them at least a trade embargo...
Yeah, genocide. Let's not forget about all the imaginary Palestinians killed at Jenin, or the massive deathcamps with their Zyklon B showers and crematoriums that the Jews had access to! Oh, wait, I meant to say STFU and stop posting OT, libelous comments on my thread.

The BBC are as unbiased as you're going to get, really.

The BBC are as unbiased as you're going to get, really.


topic closed, nothing else need be said

Frankly, having watched BBC coverage of the Middle East for some years now, I would have to say yes, I think BBC coverage is biased against Israel, even if unintentionally so.

It's not a blatant 'ISRAEL IS EVIL!' kind of bias and it's not to say the BBC don't occasionally condemn the Palestinians / give reasonable due to the Israelis, but it's subtle in the words used and in general the reporting seems more sympathetic to Palestinian than Israelis. I think part of the problem is Orla Guerin, who I just don't think is a particularly good reporter. IMO she has her job partly because of who her sister was (but I stress that IS just my opinion).

What seems to be the case most is that the reasons for Israeli action are barely mentioned, and often only as part of a chronological sequence of events ('after Palestinians did whatever...') Whereas Palestinian acts are always 'in retaliation for Israel's attack on blah blah blah'. It subtley gives the Palestinians justification but not Israelis.

Less so now, but certainly at one time, you could tell the bias of a report by how they described the 'security barrier'. The Israelis call it a fence (you know - a harmless see-through thing no more malevolent than the things you use to stop cattle wandering over the road), whereas the Palestinians call it a 'wall' (like in Berlin - symbol of apartheid / prison etc.). A balanced report calls it a barrier as only a very tiny part of it is a wall (even less the 20ft monstrosity we keep seeing), but it is by no means something so insignificant as the impression given by the word 'fence'.

The BBC are as unbiased as you're going to get, really.

Not really. I always try to watch Channel 4 news as it generally seems less biased to me. it's far from perfect, but it's better.

The Israelis call it a fence (you know - a harmless see-through thing no more malevolent than the things you use to stop cattle wandering over the road), whereas the Palestinians call it a 'wall' (like in Berlin - symbol of apartheid / prison etc.).

Wasn't it supposed to be a high tech fence with security cams all over the place with the occassional reinforcing concrete barrier? Not sure if they electrified the fence though.

The concrete barriers are only at places where gunmen were shooting at Israeli civilians, though, if you listened to the likes of the BBC, this is less important than some Arab being delayed while going to work.

The bulk of it is a 10 feet high fence with security cameras etc. It's not electrified, but there is a ditch and barbed wire etc.

The point is there are three ways of talking about it - fence, barrier and wall. The first is too innocuous sounding and is the preferred terminology of the Israeli government. The second is probably the most neutral, and the third is the most sinister sounding and is the preferred terminology of Palestinian sympathisers. The terminology someone uses about it can tell you a lot about their bias.

The concrete barriers are only at places where gunmen were shooting at Israeli civilians, though, if you listened to the likes of the BBC, this is less important than some Arab being delayed while going to work.

Well, that is more of a problem of checkpoints than the wall then is it? Unless they blocked off the roads with the fence/barrier/wall/obstruction/whatever to begin with.

Additionally, you seem to be the only one who thinks that BBC is that biased.

Additionally, you seem to be the only one who thinks that BBC is that biased.

*checks to see if I've turned invisible*

Hello?

Incidentally, how often have you heard the BBC (and others) make that comment about how the barrier is disrupting Palestinian life? [Answer: quite a lot]

How often have you heard the same news organisations report on the dramatic effect it has had in reducing terrorist attcks in Israel? [Answer: um, nope. not a lot]

Like I said, there is bias, but it is not particularly blatant.

*checks to see if I've turned invisible*

Hello?

*Boo*

I said THAT biased. I didn't say it was unbiased.

Ah. Fair enough.

Yeah, genocide. Let's not forget about all the imaginary Palestinians killed at Jenin, or the massive deathcamps with their Zyklon B showers and crematoriums that the Jews had access to! Oh, wait, I meant to say STFU and stop posting OT, libelous comments on my thread.

Yeah,genocide.What do you expect from prime ministers who used to be anti-islamic/anti-british terrorists? :rolleyes:

*checks to see if I've turned invisible*

Hello?

Incidentally, how often have you heard the BBC (and others) make that comment about how the barrier is disrupting Palestinian life? [Answer: quite a lot]

How often have you heard the same news organisations report on the dramatic effect it has had in reducing terrorist attcks in Israel? [Answer: um, nope. not a lot]

Like I said, there is bias, but it is not particularly blatant.

Nothing more than a business decision,probably.Terrorist attacks in Israel are old news while the wall and its various consequences are pretty new.

Yeah,genocide.

Erm. 20% of the Israeli population is Arab. Are you implying the Israeli government is trying to utterly rid the world of the Arab race, including a large chunk of its own populace? Because that would be genocide.

Unless you consider Hamas / Islamic Jihad / Hezbullah terrorists to be a separate race?

The only people with a genuinely genocidal policy are the likes of Hamas who want to 'rid the world of the Zionists' and implore their followers to 'kill the Jew wherever you find him'.

Don't even begin to bandy words like genocide around when you don't understand what they mean.

Yeah,genocide.What do you expect from prime ministers who used to be anti-islamic/anti-british terrorists? :rolleyes:
Can't back up your little genocide lie? Oh well, try another tactic. Maybe there's something in the Protocals of the Elders of Zion you can use.

Nothing more than a business decision,probably.Terrorist attacks in Israel are old news while the wall and its various consequences are pretty new.
The reason terrorist attacks against Israel don't happen as much is BECAUSE of the wall.

Nothing more than a business decision,probably.Terrorist attacks in Israel are old news while the wall and its various consequences are pretty new.

And here's me thinking the idea of a news agencies job was to tell us what's happening, not tell us something juicy in the hope we'll switch over.

And please stop using the word 'wall'. Your bias is showing. Less than 3% of the barrier is a wall.

Interestingly, you don't hear much about the UN sanctioned 'security barrier' in Cyprus, the Moroccan barrier in Western Sahara, the Indian barrier along the line of control with Pakistan or the Saudi barrier built on disputed land on its border with Yemen...

The reason terrorist attacks against Israel don't happen as much is BECAUSE of the wall.

He's talking about the news media coverage focus. News on barriers nobody has heard about or cares about doesn't increase viewers. News on the Hamas attacks on Israel is old news, and repetitious. News on the effects of the wall on the Palestinian lives for one, is something new.

Maybe if Israel and Palestine kept their slugging match very quiet, the world will forget them too. And the news agencies will go find that barrier in the Sahara.

My point was, there is more than one consequence of the barrier. Yes it causes massive problems for the Palestinians who have to try to cross through the check-points each day (many turn up in the morning, then go home at night, having never made it through).

But yes, it has dramatically reduced the number of terrorist attacks on innocent civilians inside Israel.

Neither consequence is newer news than the other, but we only primarily hear of one of them - the problems for Palestinians. That's biased reporting.

But yes, it has dramatically reduced the number of terrorist attacks on innocent civilians inside Israel.

To the news agencies, no news, is bad news. Ergo, lack of terrorist attacks = no news other than a snippet.


Neither consequence is newer news than the other, but we only primarily hear of one of them - the problems for Palestinians. That's biased reporting.

I'd call it showing what the viewer wants, but whatever you think.

BBC biased against Israel?
It seems that according to some every reputable organisation is "biased against Israel." Maybe Israel just sucks?

The BBC Reports on the Israel-Palestine conflict in a balanced way, covering both sides, covering how families are affected too.

In reporting, it's hard to soften the blow of an Israeli tank firing into a Palestinian market, firing at journalists, and the shootings of unarmed Palestinian kids, just as it is hard to soften the blow of a Palestinian suicide bomber indiscriminately killing dozens by detonating explosive belts, or by sniping.

You can't sanitise it, you have to reveal the brutality of such conflicts, literally blood and all.

Palestinians often accuse the BBC of being Bias as well.

Orla Guerin is one of the last few brilliant reporters with the BBC, unflinchingly reporting on both sides of the conflict without any hysteria or cluelessness but a grim and remarkably calm and detailed narrative under the circumstances.

When I say one of the last few, I mean in the sense that the BBC, having it's back broken by Blair and the Hutton Report, is now in full retreat, watering down the news into consumer issues and sensationlist domestic news and shirking away from world issues on the BBC News, and substituting hard nosed interviewers like Jeremy Paxman for wet flannels like Gavin Esler.

Andrew Marr, highly analytical Political editor, was very much on the pulse of politics...sadly shipped off to a Sunday Morning slot, replaced by a posturing, clueless former rival from ITV.

A shame.

Only BBC Newsnight and Radio 4's Today remains the last true bastions, as well as the occasional Panorama, and the BBC Four documentary, buried away near the midnight hour.

Channel 4 news remains independent, it has it's faults, but is on par, if not superior now to Newsnight.

As for ITV News, successor to the great ITN News....please, don't get me started. Utter bile.

No the BBC as of the last twenty five years has slowly moved more and more to the left, especially since the Blair era began in the UK. While its not yet quite at the Guardian level, let alone something like Al Jeezera, its does demonstrated considerable bias against Israel on occasion, especially with on the scene reports usually because the reporter in question probably gets to close to the Palestinian people and fails to see the difference between them and the militants and terrorists. Which is ironcially one of the things they accues Israel of doing, only the other way around sort of thing.

I won't go into why the left dislikes Israel, (some legitimate reasons, some just plain bias) but suffice to say now days theres no such thing as an unbaised media source which means you've got to gater information widely and make up your own mind when you've seen all the different angles.

but suffice to say now days theres no such thing as an unbaised media source

Replace the human element of newscasting with robotic information gatherers. There you go. No more bias.

Can't back up your little genocide lie? Oh well, try another tactic. Maybe there's something in the Protocals of the Elders of Zion you can use.

*sigh*

OK,how good´s your german?

Or would you mind paying a visit to the library to see if they have the member list of the infamous zionist terrorists of the "Stern Gruppe"? MI5 released sources on that in 2003.Itzak Schamir might ring a bell.Prime minister of Israel in 1983?One of the leaders of a terrorist cell.At least,terrorist if you call Hamas terrorist.Which he did.Then again,there wouldn´t BE a Hamas had the state of Israel not been created like it was...

OK,found something substanial in English,at least.You might not like the source,but it´s the best you´ll find on the net:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/irae-j21.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/isr2-j23.shtml

Even unconscious bias should naturally fall against the Israelis, they are after all the aggressors, the illegal occupiers, and those in the moral wrong.

*sigh*

OK,how good´s your german?

Or would you mind paying a visit to the library to see if they have the member list of the infamous zionist terrorists of the "Stern Gruppe"? MI5 released sources on that in 2003.Itzak Schamir might ring a bell.Prime minister of Israel in 1983?One of the leaders of a terrorist cell.At least,terrorist if you call Hamas terrorist.Which he did.Then again,there wouldn´t BE a Hamas had the state of Israel not been created like it was...

OK,found something substanial in English,at least.You might not like the source,but it´s the best you´ll find on the net:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/irae-j21.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/isr2-j23.shtml
No no no, tough guy. I want you to back up your claim of genocide. Not just change the subject to an issue that I partly agree with you on. Show me some proof that the Israelis are commiting genocide or I will feel justified in calling you a liar.

Even unconscious bias should naturally fall against the Israelis, they are after all the aggressors, the illegal occupiers, and those in the moral wrong.
Bullshit. While nobody has clean hands there the Israelis have shown incredible restraint and mercy in dealing with the Palestinians.

@new granada: Mossad is investigating you right now. :sniper:

Never forget that:

1)Jews are a race,not a religion and per definition only located in Israel.So critic against Israel is automatically rascist,as it consists only of jews.

2) Jews were always the victims of oppression, no matter when or where. Never mind that Israel is one of the largest military powers in the middle east.They´re still being oppressed...

3) All those rabbis ranting against Israel aren´t real rabbis.In fact,they´re all Adolf Hitler in disguise.

4) Let´s forget that we say jews are persecuted by everybody for a moment,aye? Jews are only persecuted (and criticized) by NAZIS.Yes,everybody who criticizes Israel or any jew(regardless of wether he thinks he knows that person is a jew or not.He obviously must know,because jews are a race and have racial charachteristics,f.ex. a big nose and a bright yellow star somewhere on their clothing) is a NAZI.In fact,they´re all Adolf Hitler in disguise.

I could go on like this for ages,but I´ll cut it off here.My point is that critic against a state should have nothing to do with bias against a denomination. My critic against Israel stems from my intolerance of fascistic practises by governments and people and not because I believe in ZOG or any of that crap.Not everybody who criticizes the state of Israel is automatically a neo-nazi dumbass.I certainly wouldn´t call a rabbi a neo-nazi,but I´m willing to give people in certain Israeli parties and government offices the benefit of doubt in that regard.Especially considering their attitude towards other "races"...

@new granada: Mossad is investigating you right now. :sniper:

Never forget that:

1)Jews are a race,not a religion and per definition only located in Israel.So critic against Israel is automatically rascist,as it consists only of jews.

2) Jews were always the victims of oppression, no matter when or where. Never mind that Israel is one of the largest military powers in the middle east.They´re still being oppressed...

3) All those rabbis ranting against Israel aren´t real rabbis.In fact,they´re all Adolf Hitler in disguise.

4) Let´s forget that we say jews are persecuted by everybody for a moment,aye? Jews are only persecuted (and criticized) by NAZIS.Yes,everybody who criticizes Israel or any jew(regardless of wether he thinks he knows that person is a jew or not.He obviously must know,because jews are a race and have racial charachteristics,f.ex. a big nose and a bright yellow star somewhere on their clothing) is a NAZI.In fact,they´re all Adolf Hitler in disguise.

I could go on like this for ages,but I´ll cut it off here.My point is that critic against a state should have nothing to do with bias against a denomination. My critic against Israel stems from my intolerance of fascistic practises by governments and people and not because I believe in ZOG or any of that crap.Not everybody who criticizes the state of Israel is automatically a neo-nazi dumbass.I certainly wouldn´t call a rabbi a neo-nazi,but I´m willing to give people in certain Israeli parties and government offices the benefit of doubt in that regard.Especially considering their attitude towards other "races"...
Yeah, I suppose you could go on like that for ages, but you certainly can't back up your accusation of genocide. Since you decided to lie and slander the nation of Israel, I don't think any further communication with you on this subject will be of any use to me.

Aight,genocide.The annihilation of a certain race or culture.

Now,let´s look at what Israel has done so far?

1.Killed lots of palestinian people
2.Stealing the environment of the (nomadic!!!) palestinian people,thus indirectly killing even more of them through disease,starvation and inner-cultural violence brought on by a stressful environment.
3.Forced palestinian people to live in an environment that prevents the rise of any (advanced) cultural charachteristics.Essentially doing their best to turn them into barbarians who resort to fanaticism because there isn´t anything else for them to do.

=> the israeli government has successfully destroyed palestinian culture and its policies,should they run unchecked,will eventually annihilate anything that resembles what palestinians once were.

I would consider such a practise genocide.

Yeah, I suppose you could go on like that for ages, but you certainly can't back up your accusation of genocide. Since you decided to lie and slander the nation of Israel, I don't think any further communication with you on this subject will be of any use to me.

Why?Because I replied to ANOTHER board member instead of immediately typing out my response to a post of yours I hadn´t even SEEN at that moment?

Sure,I was overly sarcastic,but NONE of the statements I made in that post are completely untrue.Especially not the one about the rabbis having religious objections about Israel or Israel´s "you are a nazi WAAH WAAH WAAH" response when you dare criticize their methods...

Aight,genocide.The annihilation of a certain race or culture.

Now,let´s look at what Israel has done so far?

1.Killed lots of palestinian people
2.Stealing the environment of the (nomadic!!!) palestinian people,thus indirectly killing even more of them through disease,starvation and inner-cultural violence brought on by a stressful environment.
3.Forced palestinian people to live in an environment that prevents the rise of any (advanced) cultural charachteristics.Essentially doing their best to turn them into barbarians who resort to fanaticism because there isn´t anything else for them to do.

=> the israeli government has successfully destroyed palestinian culture and its policies,should they run unchecked,will eventually annihilate anything that resembles what palestinians once were.

I would consider such a practise genocide.
1) Not enough to be considered a genocide. Palestinians are reproducing faster than Israelis. If the Israelis were practicing genocide then how could this happen? In fact, with practices like targeted killing of Hamas leaders Israelis actually spare the lives of many innocent Palestinians. Going in to arrest those Hamas leaders would turn Palestinian cities and towns into warzones leading to the deaths of thousands of Palestinians for each Hamas leader caught or killed.

2) Stealing? Israel's territory was granted to it by Emir Feisal in 1919 IIRC. Later the UN legitimized Israel as the Jewish homeland. Nothing was stolen.

3) How is there nothing else for the Palestinians to do? Despite the security fence many of them commute into Israel to work each day. They have towns and villages, they have a government in the Palestinian Authority. It's not like they're being driven into a desert with nothing but the clothes on their backs.

Sorry pal, no genocide there. I'm done with you. You're simply a liar.

I lie?Yeah,like I need to :rolleyes:

Considering that you´re completely ignoring a large part of what actually happened in favor of a rampant pro-Israel bias I´d say it´s a bit of a stretch for YOU to call me a liar.

Palestinian culture is now non-existant and has been replaced by something largely defined by a hostile state.

People are always trying to hate on the Jews. As if a couple millenia persecution isn't enough. There will always be bias against them.

2) Stealing? Israel's territory was granted to it by Emir Feisal in 1919 IIRC. Later the UN legitimized Israel as the Jewish homeland. Nothing was stolen.
He's talking about illegal settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, neither of which were ever granted or legitimised.

He's talking about illegal settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, neither of which were ever granted or legitimised.
And Gaza's been given back, but it hasn't stopped rocket attacks from originating there. I think most of the West Bank will be given back too, but that won't bring peace.

And Gaza's been given back, but it hasn't stopped rocket attacks from originating there. I think most of the West Bank will be given back too, but that won't bring peace.

It's not the land they care about, it's the fact Jews are on it. They will never stop the violence, even if everything Israel had was given away, down to a single acre of land.

And Gaza's been given back, but it hasn't stopped rocket attacks from originating there. I think most of the West Bank will be given back too, but that won't bring peace.
You may very well be right. The fact that the people who gave away the Palestinians' land (or what had been their land for thousands of years) were Europeans who had no right to decide anything will probably not disappear from the Palestinian or Arab psyche for a goodly long time.

Even if they aren´t biased,they should be.It´s about time somebody knocked up those Israeli politicians for genocide.If it were any other country,we´d´ve long since given them at least a trade embargo...

OH NO! Hey, everyone understands there has been some israeli abuse, but GENOCIDE????? Do you know what genocide actually is???

It's very sad that so many people are anti-Israel, while regarding the palestinians as some peaceful martyr victims. No-one can ignore there has been abuse from both sides.

You may very well be right. The fact that the people who gave away the Palestinians' land (or what had been their land for thousands of years) were Europeans who had no right to decide anything will probably not disappear from the Palestinian or Arab psyche for a goodly long time.
Emir Feisal was a European? http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~samuel/feisal1.html

OH NO! Hey, everyone understands there has been some israeli abuse, but GENOCIDE????? Do you know what genocide actually is???

It's very sad that so many people are anti-Israel, while regarding the palestinians as some peaceful martyr victims. No-one can ignore there has been abuse from both sides.
He couldn't back up his lie about genocide. I've already called him out on it.

A BBC journalist was once asked by management about the live broadcast he was about to do:

"Could you do it in a minute and three quarters?"

And his reply was:

"I could do the Second World War in a minute and three quarters. But you might lose some of the detail."

The moral of the story...expect balance from an hour-long investigative report, but not from a quick news summary.

Emir Feisal was a European?
He was a pawn of Britain, France, America and to a smaller extent Italy. The Balfour Declaration was pushed by England as a way to keep France in its place. And Weizmann was a Russian. Britain and America were afraid of Bolshevik Russia spreading its evil throughout Europe, so they contrived to ensure that Jewish interests were heard and Arab interests were ignored, promises made to them, broken.

Wikipedia has this to say about Feisal:

"On March 7, 1920, he was made king of Greater Syria by the Syrian National Congress. But in April 1920, the San Remo conference gave France the mandate for Syria, which led to the battle of Maysalun on July 24, 1920; Faisal was expelled from Syria by the French and went to live in the United Kingdom in August that year.

The British government, mandate holders in Iraq, were concerned at the unrest in the new country. They decided to step back from direct administration and create a monarchy to head Iraq while they maintained the mandate. Following a plebiscite showing 96% in favor, Faisal agreed to become king; so, in August 1921 he was made king of Iraq."

Europe and America pulled all the strings and arranged to have the puppet king installed. After all the broken promises in the Sykes-Picot Agreement, it is hardly surprising that the arab world has little patience for the decisions that were made in its name but without its best interests at heart.

He couldn't back up his lie about genocide. I've already called him out on it.

There your accusation of "liar" comes to haunt you.Do you HONESTLY think that was my whole argument?Did you actually read through my argument?

Genocide is a lot more than killing a lot of people.Genocide is defined as the complete destruction of a people and Israel did just that to the palestinian nomads."People",as a unity of persons,implies much more than just separate lives,but rather a unique culture that sets these humans apart from other humans.Killing a lot of humans isn´t genocide.It never was.Killing a lot of humans is called either "mass killing","mass murder","natural catastrophe" or "war".
Genocide is when you specifically target one group of people based on specific charachteristics that set them apart from other people,i.e. their culture.Without that culture there would be no people,just a lot of humans.Hence, genocide would be impossible. Now,picture this: Killing people isn´t necissary to complete genocide,as culture is the defining charachteristic of a people. Make it impossible to live the culture or kill the culture,then you won´t even have to kill the people,as the people will turn into something else entirely. Now you have a chance of absorbing those humans into your own culture or you can make the mistake of driving them off into exile/trying to keep on killing them because you´re still foaming around the mouth.That mistake would result in a DIFFERENT culture which would,probably,totally hate your culture.Hence Israel vs. the NEW palestine.

Of course, DCD will just skim through this and insult me when he/she/it´s finished,as DCD has kept on through this whole thread. All I´m getting from said person is a "Waaah,NAZI!Waaah!"-vibe and I´m not buying it.This post is primarily for the other guy who questioned my claim.A bit of a clarification.

Yes,I KNOW I´m not going by the textbook definition of genocide,but I think that one´s a tad bit oversimplified.Especially if you look at history.Genocide is rarely where a whole people are massacred(and things being left at that) but rather the massacre combined with a simulatanious cultural take-over.

<snip>

Your right in the fact that genocide can be defined in a broad or narrow sense. I tend to like this definition.

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. – Raphael Lemkin, *Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (Wash., D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1944), p. 79.

But the problem with your saying that Isreal is committing genocide is the fact that there is no government sponsered killing of people because they are palestinian. There is no attempt to wipe out palestinian culture by the government of Isreal. I don't see the connection between Isreal and a genocide. You provide opinions which are not backed up by any facts. Get some sources to back them up. It helps your credibility and doubles as facts in your arguement.